Notifications
Clear all
well hap clark pretty much said it all in the papers today.
Posted : January 29, 2009 5:41 pm
I am not sure that the issue of being a native VI person to hold office is valid. I am not an expert but I know of no state that defines that a person needs to be a native of that state to be elected as a leader. There are residency laws, but requirement to be a native. This includes states like Alaska and Hawaii. To be elected to the office of president you need to be born a citizen, only.
But what do I know? I really don't care either way but it does seem to be funny that we are spending a lot of time, and some large amount of money and it boils down to the issue of being a native VI. I suggest that we get on with the law. Make it what you want. If there is a problem it will be challenged by the ACLU!
billd
Posted : January 29, 2009 6:23 pm
Topic starter
Posted : January 30, 2009 3:06 pm
Anyone want to bet this thing won`t pass?
If history repeats itself it wont/can`t.
What a waste of, everything!
What a dividing document!
We run tings, tings don run we!<(yeah, that`s why it`s all messed up here, tings barley run at all)
Posted : January 30, 2009 11:47 pm
adelbert is acting up again
Posted : February 4, 2009 4:53 pm
Has he ever done anything else?
Posted : February 4, 2009 9:39 pm
lol,nope
Posted : February 5, 2009 12:10 pm
Page 2 / 2
Prev
